Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8+13, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 46, Art. 46+3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  The Court will confine itself to noting that, according to its standing case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available in respect only of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  The Court next observes that the violation found in the judgment of 20 July 2010 by its very nature did not leave any real choice as to the measures required to remedy it (see, mutatis mutandis, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV; Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), cited above, § 88; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, 17 September 2009; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 399, ECHR 2011; and Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, §§ 209-211, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 6276/03

  TAHERI KANDOMABADI v. the NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; and F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 91, 23 October 2012).

 
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  It takes the view, however, that the present complaint raises a new question on a matter not decided in its judgment of 20 July 2010 (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009), namely the exclusion order.
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  The Court next observes that the violation found in the judgment of 20 July 2010 by its very nature did not leave any real choice as to the measures required to remedy it (see, mutatis mutandis, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV; Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), cited above, § 88; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, 17 September 2009; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 399, ECHR 2011; and Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, §§ 209-211, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 46897/07

  EL MORABIT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; and F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 91, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  F.A.K. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; and F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 91, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see, among other authorities, Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 335, ECHR 2005-III; and Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 93, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  The Court will confine itself to noting that, according to its standing case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available in respect only of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  OTHYMIA INVESTMENTS BV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  However, Article 13 cannot reasonably be interpreted so as to require a remedy in domestic law in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious his complaint may be: the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131, and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV; more recently, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 208, ECHR 2012; A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 60538/13, § 61, 12 November 2013, and Rukavina v. Croatia, (dec.), no. 770/12, § 75, 6 January 2015).